No comments on judge's impeachment as matter not before Parliament yet: LS Speaker Om Birla
Mumbai, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday said the matter related to the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma is not before Parliament yet and there is no point commenting on the issue. No comments on judge's impeachment as matter not before Parliament yet: LS Speaker Om Birla
"We can discuss the issue when it is brought before Parliament. There is no point talking about a matter that is not before the House," Birla told reporters on the sidelines of a conference here.
The then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, who is mired in a cash-discovery row.
Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in-house panel that investigated the case.
Justice Khanna had prodded Justice Varma to resign but the latter had refused.
A motion for impeachment could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament.
In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In the Lok Sabha, 100 members have to support it.
According to the Judges Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought.
The committee consists of the CJI or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist".
The monsoon session of Parliament is scheduled to begin from July 21 and conclude on August 12.
A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse.
Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement.
The apex court has since transferred Justice Varma to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The US Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas' law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users' ages - for example by making users scan and upload their driver's license - before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not majority on the court rejected both the porn industry's argument for strict scrutiny - the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary - and Texas' argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law's legitimate aims and its Justice Clarence Thomas ' opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate court's reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only "incidentally" burdening adults' First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop 95 per cent of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions "could not have conceived of these developments," making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an "ordinary and appropriate means" doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver's licenses and voting, the court held that it's similarly appropriate for regulating minors' access to sexual key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users' ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there's no actual knowledge and thus no privacy Supreme Court 's reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California's Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids Supreme Court's reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can't enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on "loot boxes" - digital gambling-like features - and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court's this decision doesn't give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court's reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny's standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not advocates worry that while the "obscene for minors" standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled court's decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully parents worried about their kids' online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
After decades in the US, Iranians arrested in Trump's deportation drive
The department "has been full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and violent extremists that illegally entered this country, came in through Biden's fraudulent parole programs or otherwise,' spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said of the 11 arrests. She didn't offer any evidence of terrorist or extremist ties. Her comment on parole programs referred to President Joe Biden's expanded legal pathways to entry, which his successor, Donald Trump, shut down. Russell Milne, Kashanian's husband, said his wife is not a threat. Her appeal for asylum was complicated because of 'events in her early life," he explained. A court found an earlier marriage of hers to be fraudulent. But over four decades, Kashanian, 64, built a life in Louisiana. The couple met when she was bartending as a student in the late 1980s. They married and had a daughter. She volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, filmed Persian cooking tutorials on YouTube and was a grandmother figure to the children next door. The fear of deportation always hung over the family, Milne said, but he said his wife did everything that was being asked of her. 'She's meeting her obligations," Milne said. "She's retirement age. She's not a threat. Who picks up a grandmother?' While Iranians have been crossing the border illegally for years, especially since 2021, they have faced little risk of being deported to their home countries due to severed diplomatic relations with the US. That seems to no longer be the case. The Trump administration has deported hundreds of people, including Iranians, to countries other than their own in an attempt to circumvent diplomatic hurdles with governments that won't take their people back. During Trump's second term, countries including El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have taken back noncitizens from the US. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for several deportations to South Sudan, a war-ravaged country with which it has no ties, after the justices allowed deportations to countries other than those noncitizens came from. The US Border Patrol arrested Iranians 1,700 times at the Mexican border from October 2021 through November 2024, according to the most recent public data available. The Homeland Security Department reported that about 600 Iranians overstayed visas as business or exchange visitors, tourists and students in the 12-month period through September 2023, the most recent data reports. Iran was one of 12 countries subject to a US travel ban that took effect this month. Some fear ICE's growing deportation arrests will be another blow. In Oregon, an Iranian man was detained by immigration agents this past week while driving to the gym. He was picked up roughly two weeks before he was scheduled for a check-in at ICE offices in Portland, according to court documents filed by his attorney, Michael Purcell. The man, identified in court filings as 'SF', has lived in the US for over 20 years, and his wife and two children are US citizens. SF applied for asylum in the US in the early 2000s, but his application was denied in 2002. His appeal failed but the government did not deport him and he continued to live in the country for decades, according to court documents. Due to 'changed conditions' in Iran, SF would face 'a vastly increased danger of persecution' if he were to be deported, Purcell wrote in his petition. 'These circumstances relate to the recent bombing by the United States of Iranian nuclear facilities, thus creating a de facto state of war between the United States and Iran.' SF's long residency in the US, his conversion to Christianity and the fact that his wife and children are US citizens 'sharply increase the possibility of his imprisonment in Iran, or torture or execution,' he said. Similarly, Kashanian's daughter said she is worried what will happen to her mother. 'She tried to do everything right,' Kaitlynn Milne said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC quashes cheating case over broken marriage vow
HYDERABAD: Justice N Tukaramji of the Telangana high court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of cheating a woman by allegedly backing out of a promise to marry her. Allowing the criminal petition filed by the accused, the judge held that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements to constitute offences under sections 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from a 2019 complaint in which the woman alleged that the man had proposed marriage but later withdrew, citing objections from his parents. She claimed the broken promise caused her severe emotional distress, leading her to attempt suicide. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad A police case was subsequently registered, and a chargesheet was filed. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter involved, at most, a failed promise to marry-which by itself does not amount to cheating or dishonest inducement, essential elements under section 420 IPC. The continuation of criminal proceedings, the counsel contended, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The prosecution, however, maintained that the complaint was supported by witness statements and warranted a full trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo After reviewing the facts and relevant legal precedents from the high courts of Andhra Pradesh , Telangana, and Karnataka, Justice Tukaramji ruled that the complaint did not establish any fraudulent or dishonest intent at the time the promise was made. The judge observed that there was no indication the petitioner had induced the complainant to deliver property or take any action she would not have otherwise taken but for the alleged deception-criteria required to establish cheating under section 415 IPC. "The complaint lacks the foundational elements necessary to constitute an offence of cheating. There is no prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner," the judge said. Accordingly, the high court quashed the criminal proceedings .
